Laptops and Civ4

[Bouchehog]

I need to buy a new laptop in the near future. If possible I'd like to get something as light and portable as possible. That's the main priority, but if I can get a portable laptop that will play Civ4 without costing the earth I will be in heaven. I've been looking at getting a Sony VAIO of some description, but they're quite expensive...

So, can anyone suggest a laptop, preferably for under £1,000, which will be light and portable with a long battery life, but will play Civ4 (on lowest settings, in the early game if not toward the end).

Also, are there likely to be any portable laptops that will play Civ4 on the second-hand (eBay) market, or would it be a waste of my looking there.

Any help greatly appreciated!

 

[Zydor]

Have a look at this one
http://www.computershopper.co.uk/shopper/reviews/80548/gateway-8550gb.html
Product spec
http://uk.gateway.com/products/prodDetails.html?prod=Gateway_8550GB

Gateway did pull out of Europe a while back, but they back in again. Civ IV is full blown 3D, so graphics processing is a close first priority given a decent cpu. That one also has the Mobility Radeon X700. There is a "break point" in the mobility Radeons between the X600 & the X700, the latter is a far far more capable gpu and the Gateway notebook is a good compromise between the high end flexible desktop replacement and the "thin & Light" Brigade - £995 incl VAT (buy your self a couple of pints ).

The big issue with the on board graphics processors (apart from stealing memory and cpu time in low end ones) is heat, and with the older ones aka X600 and below they had to reduce the number of pipelines in them compared to their desktop equivelent to keep heat within bounds for such a small form factor - still do above X600s also, but to a lesser extent as the design became more efficient. There are similar issues with the lower end NVidia equivalents.

Another aspect to be wary of is how the graphics processor performs. In 3D pure pixel count alone is not a be all and end all performance indicator - in 3D large numbers of polygons are processed before its thrown on the screen. Large pixel counts are well and good - and they are a reasonable general indicator of relative power & performance - but in 3D the way and efficiency of processing the huge number of polygons needed is also a key factor. A run down on that is at http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/polygons.html its at a deep level, but you'll get the idea, enough to be wary of pixel counts as the be-all-end-all performance indicator.

A general run down of graphics processors is at
http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/ and will give a very general relative guide - dont bet the Farm on the figures - but it helps put into context what you eventually buy. As you indicate there are limitations in laptops " .... (on lowest settings, in the early game if not toward the end).... ".

I would suggest taking the Civ discs to any supplier (where you can) and get them to load the game - ie prove it ! You should be able to do that at Comet. My personal opinion of EBay buying laptops is be very careful - many are dumped on there - in increasing numbers as the reality of 3D gaming in "sexy" laptops strikes home - and they are there for a reason, too often its because they are not powerful enough blah blah.

For £1000, you have to make compromises re laptops for 3D, the 8550GB does that well in my view.

Many laptops of course - "hundreds" of em. Hopefully other suggestions will get posted as well

Regards
Zy

 

[Akhenaton]

Another aspect to be wary of is how the graphics processor performs. In 3D pure pixel count alone is not a be all and end all performance indicator - in 3D large numbers of polygons are processed before its thrown on the screen.

In addition to polygon rates there is also the shader performance for which there are additionally different benchmarks with different numbers of light sources and shader code levels. And ofcourse there are also optimization levels, memory bus bottlenecks etc.

I don't think CivIV is heavy on poly rate due to the very limited number of objects and the standard camera angles. Can't say much about shader usage, but the fact that downgrading shader models or using lower generation HW doesn't drop the performance appreciably, might indicate that it's light as well.

So in other words, lower generation indicators are most likely more relevant to CivIV (meaning 3DMark03 scores and texel fillrate). If you're really looking for a "single number" performance figure and not willing to go over a dozen of reviews with upteen graphs for different games, then the figure for a new computer's graphics subsystem is a forward looking benchmark, in case of laptops I would suggest 3DMark05 score (preferably at the native resolution or lower if talking about non-high end mobile graphics).

However, the problem in quoting application benchmark (game coctail scores or synthetic) as a performance figure in casual comparisons is that you would have to make it a full review and spell out the driver/BM build/game build versions used and the result would be valid only with those versions. This information will be outdated within a few months when all of those versions are different and competing products may differ in performance for tens of percents depending on where their respective (driver) maturity (read per app optimization) levels lie.

IMHO it's reasonable simplification to use tech specs which are NOT going to change during the lifetime of the product (excluding OC changes due to better cooling arrangements). The textured pixel fillrate is a valid figure for comparison between GPUs of the same architecture. The differences between models are mostly just numbers of pipelines, units and different clock rates, which will not change the ratio between real life attainable performance and theoretical texel fillrate. The same comparison is not as valid between archs of different generation or manufacturer, but the differences there are on the same order as those between benchmarks and day to day performance with latest drivers measured at significant time intervals.

Otherwise I agree with Zydor that those would probably be good choices for CivIV, like any recent laptop with midrange or better (discrete) graphics.

 

[Bouchehog]

The gateway sounds like a really good option - thanks! I'm encouraged by this part in the linked review:

Fortunately the X700 graphics included here should be more than up to the task. It'll also run games, although you may need to reduce detail levels to play the latest titles. It managed a very respectable 24.3fps in our tough Doom 3 test.

If it can manage to play doom 3, it should eat up Civ4 until at least the industrial era (particularly if I expand the RAM to 1gb). Having said that, I do wonder if I could drop the size/power and get an even more portable laptop for less that will just about play. Ultimately this is a work machine that I want to be able to use on a wireless network and play Civ4 when I'm away. It doesn't really matter if it struggles a bit because I won't be playing that much on it and certainly not any FPSs. The gateway is a nice slim desktop-replacement really. It does look pretty sweet though.

Also, is there any advantage in waiting at all? It looks to be at the top of thier range at the moment and although I don't have any experience with buying laptops, were this a 3D card or something I'd be paying a sever premium for having the latest thing, rather than dropping a couple of months' tech and losing a vast amount from the price.

 

[Zydor]

I hear your thoughts, but the nice part about this one is the Mobility X700. All Mobility's are cut down versions in terms of pipelines compared to their desktop video card equivelent, need to due to heat, and in very general crude terms they drop 15-30% in performance compared to desktop video card based systems, depending on the machine and its setup. (X600/Mobility X600 is infamous for that). The X700 is a substantial step change in performance to the X600, the Mobility varient is very good value in a laptop of that spec and price. Graphics processing is hugely important in 3D, it does not take much to drop down to lacklusture performance, that X700 should keep you on track most of the time.

In terms of waiting, personal choice, many pros & cons depending on your viewpoint, mine is that whatever you buy - and whenever you buy it - its going to be "dated" the day after purchase, and so called "obsolete" in 9-12 months - its the way of technology as they say If you wait 2/3 months for a replacement highend to come to Market and a price drop for others, something else will be just around the corner - so it goes on - pass the Valium

There's always cases where the latter dont really make sense of course, but in general I tend to say %^%$£$ it, buy 'now' - particularly if its a medium level system (as this is) not a high end behemouth.

As to dropping a level, personaly I wouldnt. It maybe ok now, but what happens when "Mega Game V99" releases in 12 months needing a hike in hardware support (aka Civ III / Civ IV), if you have no 'spare' horses left in there to run V99 albeit at lower graphics - your stuck again and its only 18 months old. Again there's limits to that - not least if the dosh is not there right now - but if your budget is £1000, you have a chance to keep going for a while with this medium level one. Dropping to the low end "thin & light" ones gives you no room to move if you need the extra legs (in general terms), quite apart from the fact that the lower "thin & light usually have poor graphics processing power in 3D terms.

Dont forget to take the discs and get the Comet guy to prove it if he wants his Sales Commission - you know what Comet can be like

Regards
Zy

 

[Bouchehog]

Good point, but my main machine is a A64/1gb/GF4/SATA setup which still runs well and will keep me going for quite some time if I upgrade the old graphics card (probably in time for the next Unreal Tournament). I don't need this particular machine to be future proofed - it's just a laptop that I can use the internet on, wordprocess/simple spreadsheets and if possible Civ4. I spend 90% of my time in court, so battery life, size and weight are all large factors.

Having said that, if I can't get a machine that will run Civ4 and be light/small/moderately priced, then I'll probably plump for something mid-ranged like the gateway - for that sort of compromise it's better than anything I can find myself.

The main issue seems to be with shared graphics cards - the VAIO TX series, which would otherwise be perfect have 128mb shared RAM and I can't see that running even Civ4 in the slightest, even if I were to increast the main RAM.

In short then, I only really want to spend £1k on a new machine if it's VAIO sized and runs Civ4; I don't really want a desktop replacement (unless it becomes the best option) as I have a decent desktop still.

 

[Zydor]

I hear the concern re shared graphics - these two reviews should put your mind at rest re the X700 (hardocp very good reviewers). Below that level it becomes an increasing issue, but not so much with the X700 - particularly the two versions with on chip memory (you need to check that with Gateway)
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzQ2
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2360

A laptop in the Desktop Replacement category always the best option - but costs you an arm & two legs let alone one

(EDIT: Note the dates of the review(s) in particular in connection with game benchmarks - may well be different game versions out by now which could affect performance - doubt by much, but worth baring in mind )

Problem going down to "thin & Light" is you will hit graphics limitations you are wisely cautious of.

Regards
Zy